Nafems Dynamic Fea Webinar April 09 PDF

Introductory Dynamic FE Analysis
Webinar
April 2nd, 2009

Agenda
Introductory Dynamic FE Analysis Webinar
April 2nd, 2009
11am EDT (New York) / 4pm GMT (London)
Welcome & Introduction (Overview of NAFEMS Activities)

Matthew Ladzinski, NAFEMS North America
Dynamic FE Analysis
Tony Abbey, FETraining
Q&A Session
Panel
Closing
Ladzinski Abbey
Collaboration Innovation Productivity - Quality
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
COMMUNITY
An Overview of NAFEMS Activities
Matthew Ladzinski
NAFEMS
North America

Planned Activities
Webinars
New topic each month!
Dynamic FE Analysis
Recent webinars:
Modal Analysis in Virtual Prototyping and Product Validation
Practical Advice for Finite Element Analysis of Your Design
Pathways to Future CAE Technologies and their Role in Ambient Intelligent
Environments
Computational Structural Acoustics: Technology, Trends and Challenges
FAM: Advances in Research and Industrial Application of Experimental Mechanics
CCOPPS: Power Generation: Engineering Challenges of a Low Carbon Future
Practical CFD Analysis
Complexity Management
CCOPPS: Creep Loading of Pressurized Components Phenomena and Evaluation
Multiphysics Simulation using Implicit Sequential Coupling
CCOPPS: Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels
Applied Element Method as a Practical Tool for Progressive Collapse Analysis of
Structures
AUTOSIM: The Future of Simulation in the Automotive Industry
A Common Sense Approach to Stress Analysis and Finite Element Modeling
The Interfacing of FEA with Pressure Vessel Design Codes (CCOPPS Project)
Multiphysics Simulation using Directly Coupled-Field Element Technology
Methods and Technology for the Analysis of Composite Materials
Simulation-supported Decision Making (Stochastics)
To register for upcoming webinars, or to view a past webinar,

please visit: www.nafems.org/events/webinars
Established in 2009
Proposed initial course offerings:
Dynamic FE Analysis
Stochastics
Composites
Verification & Validation
Next course:
Topic: Dynamic FE Analysis
Start: April 21st, 2009 (six-week course)
For more information, visit: www.nafems.org/e-learning
When: June 16th 19th, 2009
Where: Crete, Greece
Updates:
Over 200 presentations
Six Keynote Presentations
Additional Workshops and Activities:
Mini-symposium: Analysis and Simulation of Composite
Structures Including Damage and Failure Prediction
Engineering Analysis Quality, Verification & Validation

NWC09 Keynotes
Erich Schelkle - Porsche AG and Automotive Simulation Center
Stuttgart, Germany
Tsuyoshi Yasuki - Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan
Martin Wiedemann - DLR German Aerospace Center, Germany
Jacek Marczyk - Ontonix, Italy
Louis Komzsik - Siemens PLM Software, USA
Franois Besnier - Principia RD, France

For more information about the NWC09, please
visit: www.nafems.org/congress.
Sponsorship and Exhibition Opportunities Still

Available!
For more information, please visit:
www.nafems.org/congress/sponsor.

Welcome and Agenda
Introduction to FETraining
Overview of the e-Learning Course
Q and A
NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

Creating Awareness Delivering Education and Training Stimulating Standards Dynamics E-Learning Course V1.0 Page 10
Introduction to FETraining
Tony Abbey
BSc Aero. Eng. University of Hertfordshire, UK

MSc Struct. Eng. Imperial College, London
Started at BAC Warton, UK in 1976
Worked in UK Defence Industry for 20 years;

Hunting Engineering, BAe Systems, RRA
Joined MSC.Software as UK support and Training

Manager in 1996
Transferred to MSC.Software US in 2000

Primary Skill Set:
NASTRAN Joined Noran Engineering 2003
PATRAN
FEMAP Formed FE Training in 2007

Intro to FETraining: Consultancy Solutions
Statics
Dynamics
Composites
Non-Linear
Fatigue
Fracture Mechanics
Thermal
Aero Elasticity
Details
Email : tony@fetraining.com
www.fetraining.com
Intro to FETraining: Training Solutions
Interactive DVD
Live Training On-Site or Public Courses
E-Learning multiple or one-on-one
Details
Email : tony@fetraining.com
www.fetraining.com

Members Price: 243 | 264 | $350
Non-Members Price: 382 | 415 | $550
Order Ref:el-001
Event Type:Course
Location: E-Learning,Online
Date: April 21, 2009
www.nafems.org/events/nafems/2009/e-dynamicfea/

Overview of Dynamics e-Learning Class
Dynamics Analysis
Many problems facing designers and engineers are dynamic in nature. The
response of a structure cannot be simply assessed using static assumptions.
The nature of the problem may be to understand the resonant frequencies of
your design, so that key driving frequencies such as equipment rotational speed,
acoustic or external pressure frequencies, ground motion frequency content or
vehicle passing frequency.
Your design may face external driving forces from adjacent components; cams,
push rods, pistons or from vehicle input sources such as a bumpy road, wave
loading, air pressure or inertial forces.
Whatever the nature of the challenge, this objective of this course is to break
down the dynamic problem into clearly defined steps, give an overview of the
physics involved and show how to successfully implement practical solutions
using Finite Element Analysis.

Overview of Dynamics e-Learning Class
Why an e-learning class?
In the current climate travel and training budgets are tight. To help you still meet
your training needs the following e-learning course has been developed to
complement the live class.
The e-learning course runs over a six week period with a single two hour
session per week.
Bulletin Boards and Email are used to keep in contact between sessions,
mentoring homework and allowing interchange between students.
E-learning classes are ideal for companies with a group of engineers requiring
training. E-learning classes can be provided to suit your needs and timescale.
Contact us to discuss your requirements.
We hope that small companies or individuals can now take part in the training
experience.

Webinar
Agenda
What are Natural Frequencies, Normal Modes

- and why are they important?
Why cant I get displacements out of Normal Modes Analysis?

- are these real values?
Importance of Mode Identification

dont just quote a frequency!
What are Rigid Body Modes?

my structure is elastic, why do I see them?

Webinar
Agenda (continued)
Damping
What level of damping should I use?
Transient Analysis background

that looks simple, stepping through time?
Frequency Response Analysis

how is that different from transient analysis?
Quick peek at Shock Spectra and Random analysis

What are Natural Frequencies, Normal
Modes
- and why are they important?
Analysis of the Normal Modes or Natural Frequencies of a structure is a search
for its resonant frequencies.
A diving board vibrating after the diver makes his leap
A car cup holder rattling after we go over a bump
We tend to use both terms to mean the resonant frequency of oscillation , but
more accurately:
Natural Frequency - the actual measure of frequency in cycles per second

(Hz) or similar units
Normal Mode - the characteristic deflected shape of the structure as it

resonates imagine using a strobe to freeze motion
There are many resonant frequencies in a typical structure

Modes
Here are the first 4 modes of the board:
1 First Bending 1.3 Hz

2 Second Bending 3.6 Hz
3 Side Shear 14.5 Hz
4 First Torsion 19.1 Hz
We expect mode 1 to dominate intuitively, but notice we have a twisting mode maybe a
very heavy athlete could just catch a corner of the board and put some twist in?
How could mode 2 get excited?
Is mode 3 of any practical interest?

Modes

Modes
First 5 modes of the cup holder
The first mode is a cantilever nodding mode, at 15.7 Hz - almost certainly a

dominant mode
Then two twisting modes, at 34.6 Hz and 45.8 Hz
Then two hogging modes at 124.7 Hz and 144.7 Hz.
Intuitively we would expect all these to be important modes, but as yet we cant prove
that.
The next range of modes are 160 Hz and above and are very complex shapes.
Important question ; what is the range of input or driving frequencies? That will dictate
which modes are critical.

Modes
Assume we are a subcontractor to the auto manufacturer. If we are very lucky he will
tell us the range of frequencies we can expect to see at the attachment region on the
dashboard, based on his analysis and test results
We can use that as the basis of the range of interest. We cant use the range directly
as that ignores the very complex interaction we may see between harmonics of the
system and other factors. So we typically take an upper bound of 1.5 or 2 times the
upper frequency.
The lower bound should go right down to the lowest frequency we find, as it is difficult
to provide a sensible cut off here.
So that gives us a set of modes of interest to investigate. We know a lot about the
dynamic characteristics of the cup now. The basic building block approach.
Next stage is to look at how the cup is excited by the dashboard the response
analysis
It could be an actual time history, frequency response, shock spectra or random

response at the interface
Modes
Frequency Ranges
Theoretically there are an infinite number of natural frequencies in any structure.
In FE analysis this reduces to the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) in the

model.
We are normally only interested in the dominant frequencies of a system, luckily

for us these are usually the first few natural frequencies
Energy required to get a significant response increases as frequency increases
Bridge say .5 Hz to 5 Hz important. Above 20 Hz effectively ignores excitation
However excitation frequency may be very high and drives he structural response
Crankshaft in a F1 racing car - say 60,000 RPM means 1000 Hz is critical

Modes
Theoretical Normal Modes analysis is a rather strange process in some ways.
In practice a structure cannot reveal what natural frequencies it has until we

jolt it or hit it or excite it in some way.
As usual in physics we have to apply an input to the system to get a

response out.
Physical testing for normal modes takes this approach
For Theoretical analysis we take a different route:

In the theoretical approach we look for all the frequencies of a system that show a
perfect balance between:
the internal stored energy

kinetic energy due to motion
At these frequencies the interchange between the two forms of energy is very easily
triggered by any external input which has the same driving frequency.
These unique or special frequencies were labeled Eigen Frequencies in the early 20th
Century, from the German word. Mode shapes are correspondingly called Eigen Vectors
In the theoretical solution we dont need an external excitation!
The energy balance is calculated by considering the inertial and stiffness terms in
isolation. We can find all the structural frequencies and mode shapes this way.

m = mass (inertia)
b = damping (energy dissipation)
k = stiffness (restoring force)
p = applied force
u = displacement of mass
= velocity of mass
= acceleration of mass
responses u& and u&& vary in time

load input p can vary in time
m, k and b are constant with time in linear analysis

Modes
mu&&(t ) + bu& (t ) + ku (t ) = p (t )
Inertia Force Damping Force Stiffness Force Applied Force

Modes
mu&&(t ) + bu& (t ) + ku (t ) = p (t )
Inertia Force Damping Force Stiffness Force Applied Force
undamped free vibration analysis

In the SDOF equation of motion reduces to:

mu&&(t ) + ku (t ) = 0
Assume a solution of the form:
u (t ) = A sin nt + B cos nt
This form defines the response as being HARMONIC, combinations
of sine and cosine shape responses with a resonant frequency of:

For a SDOF system the resonant, or natural frequency, is given by :

k
n =
m
We can solve for the constants A and B :
When t = 0, sin( n t ) = 0 thus B = u(t = 0)

Differenti ating solution :
u& (t ) = An cos nt Bn sin nt
When t = 0, B n sin( n t ) = 0 thus
u& (t = 0) u& (0)
A= u (t ) = sin nt + u (0) cos nt
n n
For a SDOF we know the Natural Frequency or Eigen Value:
k
:
n = = n 2
m
The displacement response is indeterminate as we dont know any initial
conditions
u& (0)
u (t ) = sin nt + u (0) cos nt
n
The Eigen Vector n in this SDOF is literally any arbitrary number

Now consider the system in terms of a Matrix Solution

k M k 2M k
DOF: 1 2 3 4
The individual element stiffness matrices [K1],[K2], and [K3]

are:
1 1
[ K 1 ] = [K 2 ] = [ K 3 ] = k
1 1

To derive the model stiffness matrix [K], we assemble the individual

element stiffness matrices [K1],[K2], and [K3]:
DOF: 1 2 3 4
1 1
1 1 + 1 1
[K ] = k
1 1 + 1 1
1 1

If we eliminate grounded DOF at 1 and 4:
2 1 1 0
[K ] = k
and [M ] = m We lump masses
at DOF
1 2 0 2

The equation of motion in matrix form is:

[M ]{&x&} + [K ]{x} = 0
If we substitute in
This means we have a mode shape,
{x} = { }e it
{} , which varies sinusoidally with a
frequency .
And {&x&} = { }e 2 i t
Then 2 [M ]{ } + [K ]{ } = 0
This means we can find a mode
shape, {}, and frequency where
So ([K ] [M ]){ } = 0
2 the inertia terms and elastic terms
balance
2 1 2 1 0
1 2 m 0 2 { } = 0
k The Eigenvalue problem

If we have a set of n physical degrees of freedom (2 in our

case)
Then we have n sets of unique Eigenvalues i2 and eigenvectors {i}

where i = 1 to n
For each of these sets, the inertia terms balance the elastic terms and
this is the definition of resonance

k 0.731
So at 1 = 0.634 , the motion is defined by: {1} =
m 1 .000
2.731
And at 2 = 2.366 k , the motion is defined by: { } =
1.000
2
m

Let us add some values in and check out the numbers:

Let k = 1000 units of force / length
Let m = 20 units of mass
k
Then 1 = 0.634 = 5.629 rads = 0.896 Hz
s
m
k
2 = 2.366 = 10.875 rads = 1.731Hz
s
m
Notice the conversion of Frequency from Radians/s to Cycles/s (Hertz)
f
=
2
Class Topics taking this further
Eigenvalue Extraction Methods
Error Checks in Normal Modes
Reduction techniques
Residual Vectors
Modal Effective Mass
Case Studies

Webinar
Agenda
Why cant I get displacements out of Normal Modes Analysis?


Displacements out of Normal Modes Analysis
In life, sadly we can never get something for nothing.
The side effect of the Eigen Value method is that we do not know
the actual amplitude of the shapes that we calculate.
This confuses many users who are new to modal analysis.
The 2 DOF spring example gave us

0.731 2.731
{ } = { } =
1.000 1.000
1 2
We can equally say:
0.731 1.000
{1} = {2 } =
1 . 000 0 .366

How can we predict a shape without knowing its magnitude?
The simple answer is because we havent provided any excitation input or initial
conditions.
We dont know the weight of the diver or how high his spring was.
We dont know the speed of the car or the height of the bump.
All we know is what the range of natural frequencies of the board and the holder will be
and what their respective deflected shapes will look like.
But I see screen animations, they must have a value for deformation and they
look big?
The answer here is that we scale the magnitude of the shapes to one of several types
of arbitrary definitions for convenience and for shape comparison.
A post processor will further scale deformations so you can see each mode shape
clearly typically 10% of the maximum viewable dimension, again quite arbitrary.
The second part of the question is very important we are only dealing with linear,
small displacement theory. So in practice vibration amplitudes would have to be small
relative to the size of the structure.
Pseudo static assumptions
Modal Effective mass in base motion

Webinar
Agenda


Very close son,
2133 Hz is better
2144 Hz !!!
0.5% error here?


Correlation between models and model and test is important
Test Analysis
Corresponding points on test and analysis model are located and deflections
measured, for each mode shape found

Mass Normalised Eigenvectors within one system have the

characteristic:
{ }Ti [M ]{ }i = 1 .0
{ }Ti [M ]{ }j = 0 .0
Consider Mass Normalised Eigenvectors across two systems
{ }A Refers to the Analysis Results
{ }T Refers to the Test or External Model

Results

Mass Orthogonality Check is
Diagonal { }TA [M ]{ }T = 1 .0
for perfect correlation
Off-Diagonal { }TA [M ]{ }T = 0 .0
A perfectly correlated Analysis and Test result will be a Unit

Diagonal Matrix
Closeness to 1.0 or 0.0 represents degree of orthogonality
It is the ratio between the diagonal and off diagonal terms which is
important


Modal Assurance Criteria (MAC) has a similar approach
[{ } { } ]
T
A T
2
{ } { }T { }TT { }A
T
A
A perfectly correlated Analysis and Test result will be a Unit

Diagonal Matrix as before
Various other variations on the basic idea are available, some

include frequency shift as well as mode shape comparison.



Project examples
Describing and assessing modes
Correlation Case studies

Webinar
Agenda


For every DOF in which a structure is not totally constrained, it
allows a Rigid Body Mode (stress-free mode) or a
mechanism
The natural frequency of each Rigid Body Mode should be

close to zero
Classic mechanism due to element DOF mismatch

Typical causes of mechanisms
Low order elastic eigenvectors
Grounding and other checks

Webinar
Agenda (continued)
Damping

Damping
The only honest answer is - it depends!
Lets review what damping is and come back to the question

Damping
If viscous damping is assumed, the equation of motion becomes:
mu&&(t ) + bu& (t ) + ku (t ) = 0
There are 3 types of solution to this, defined as:
Critically Damped
Overdamped
Underdamped
A swing door with a dashpot closing mechanism is a good analogy:
If the door oscillates through the closed position it is underdamped
If it creeps slowly to the closed position it is overdamped
If it closes in the minimum possible time, with no overswing, it is critically
damped

Damping
DAMPED FREE VIBRATION SDOF (Cont.)
For the critically damped case, there is no oscillation, just a decay from
the initial condition:
u (t ) = ( A + Bt )e bt / 2 m
The damping in this case is defined as:
b = bcr = 2 km = 2m n
A system is overdamped when b > bcr
We are generally only interested in the final case - underdamped

Damping
For the underdamped case b < bcr and the solution is the form:
u (t ) = e bt / 2 m ( A sin d t + B cos d t )
d represents the Damped natural frequency of the system:
d = n 1 2
is called the Critical damping ratio and is defined by:
b
=
bcr
In most analyses is less than .1 (10%) so d n

Damping
The graph is from a transient analysis of the previous spring mass system
with damping applied
Frequency and period
as before
Amplitude is a function
of damping
Disp.
5% Damping
2%
Damping
Time
Damping
I have discussed viscous damping but this is just one simulation method
Other types of damping simulations exist which may be preferable
Modal damping viscous damping, but linked to each mode shape

Structural damping overall or material based single slope frequency
dependent damping
Rayleigh damping stiffness dominated region and mass dominated
region
Coulomb damping based on stick unstick friction
Nonlinear damping in nonlinear solutions, can be dependent on many
types of response including displacement, velocity, acceleration
Etc
The real world damping is a complex phenomena and is not fully understood
Testing and tuning against test results is the best approach

Damping
Now to answer the question, with a very rough rule of thumb and
using critical damping ratio:
Vibration absorbing material could be 10% or greater but*
Composite structure 3% - 10%
Rusty structure, friction clamps throughout 5% - 10%
Clean metallic structure bolted, riveted joints throughout 3% 6%
Clean integrally machined structure 2% to 4%
Clean room integrally machined specially designed 1% to 2%
* Anything over 10 % is reaching the limits of linear analysis

Damping
2%
Damping
5% Damping
Bottom line is that a lower bound estimate is conservative, and upper bound is not
Always best to present a set of responses, based on two or three damping levels
Damping
Damping theories in response analysis
Damping case studies
Checking damping levels
Compound approach to damping

Webinar
Agenda (continued)
Transient Analysis background


Transient Analysis Background
In general a transient analysis is most intuitive and we like to

introduce response analysis using this approach

The Dynamic equation of motion is t
[M ]{u&&(t )}+ [B]{u&(t )}+ [K ]{u(t )} = {P(t )}
The response is solved at discrete times with a fixed time
step
Using central finite difference representation for {u& (t )} and {u&&(t )}
at discrete times
Un-1
{u&n } = 1
{un+1 un1} Disp Un+1 the unknown
2t u(t) un
{u&&n } = 1 2 {un+1 2un + un1}
t time

Some practical points to consider:
It is often easier to think in milliseconds (ms) - .001s = 1ms.
The time step chosen should be sufficiently small to capture the highest frequency
of interest in the response. For example, if this value is 100 Hz, each time period is
.01s (10ms) so we need at the very least 5 steps to capture the response, i.e.. t
=.002s (2ms). The preferred minimum number is 10 steps per period.
The accuracy of the load input is similarly dependent on the time step chosen, so a
loading with a 1000 Hz input will need at least t of .0002s (.2ms) and preferably
.0001s (.1ms)
Shock loading will have very high frequency content, either as an applied load, or
coming through a contact in non-linear
The smaller the value of t , the more accurate the integration will be, this may
override the previous comments.

It may be cost effective in a large model to decrease t at a time of critical interest

(say under impulsive loading) and increase it later. However, for linear transient
analysis, changing t can be CPU expensive
Normally it will take a few runs to tune the model overall, and the effectiveness of
this technique can be investigated
The number of times steps needs to be adequate to ensure all over swings are
captured and that the response is decaying at the cut off point, with no surprises.
Reduce output to key nodes or elements to act as test points. Only when model
is thoroughly debugged then ask for full output

QA check frequency content matches what you expect (the building block
approach)
Use the graphical method shown, or a Fourier Analysis.
The time for 3 periods

of oscillation is:
0.0330 0.0105 = 0.0225 s
Time period:
0.0225
= .0075 s
T
3
Frequency:
1
= 133.3 Hz .
T
Loaded Free

QA check damping values
Use logarithmic decrement on successive peaks method to confirm total
damping at that DOF
d
G = 2 =

Where:
d1
d = ln
d2

QA watch for aliasing
Time steps are too coarse and misleading frequency content is seen
Peak responses are missed

When and how to go nonlinear in impact:
Rule of thumb
Bearing type contacts

Implicit
Mother in Law hits parking spot post at 15 mph
Explicit
Nigel Mansell hits Indy Car wall at 200 mph

Direct and Modal methods
Further damping assumptions
Transient Case Studies
Cook book approach for time step estimation
Fourier Analysis of frequency content
Large model strategies

Webinar
Agenda (continued)


Transient response is intuitive and can be visualized as a time history of an event.
Displacement
Time
Frequency response is best visualized as a response to a structure on a shaker table,

Adjusting the frequency input to the table gives a range of responses
Displacement
Frequency (Hz)

We now apply a harmonic forcing function: p sin t
Note that is the DRIVING or INPUT frequency
The equation of motion becomes:
mu&&(t ) + bu& (t ) + ku (t ) = p sin t
The solution consists of two terms
The initial response, due to initial conditions which decays rapidly in the
presence of damping
The steady-state response as shown:
sin( t + )
u ( ) = p / k
(1 2
) 2
+ ( 2 / ) 2
n 2 n
This equation is described on the next page

This equation deserves inspection as it shows several important dynamic
characteristics:
Phase lead of the response relative
to the input
sin( t + )
u ( ) = p / k
(1 2
) 2
+ ( 2 / ) 2
n 2 n
This is the static loading At w >> wn both terms

and dominates as w tends drive the response to
to 0.0 0.0
At w = wn this term = (2 )^2

and controls the scaling of the
At w = wn this term = 0.0 response
With no damping present this From this is derived the Dynamic
results in an infinite response Magnification Factor 1 / 2

Summary:

For << 1
n
Magnification factor 1 (static solution)

Phase angle 0 (response is in phase with the force)

For >> 1
n
Magnification factor 0 (no response)

Phase angle 180 (response is out of phase with the force)

For 1
n
Magnification factor 1 / 2 (dynamic magnification factor

Phase angle 90 (response is in transition)
Magnification Factor = 1/2 = 1/G = 50

Static Response = p/k = 0.01
Peak Response = 0.5 at 1.59 Hz
Note:
Use of a Log scale helps identify low
order response
Displacement
Frequency (Hz)

Some practical points to consider:
Frequency Response calculation points ( sometimes called spectral lines):
Must be at each natural frequency to ensure that the peak responses are captured
Must be spread around each natural frequency to capture a good shape
A general spread of points is required to capture the overall trend of the curve
The number of calculation points will increase CPU cost and output quantities
As with transient debug the model using key nodes and element responses before
running full output requests
Use log scales to help visualization
Avoid responses or definitions at 0.0 hz - log10 0.0 = 1.0 !

Modal and Direct methods
Further damping methods
Large model strategies
Case studies

Webinar
Agenda (continued)

Webinar
Agenda (continued)

Webinar
Agenda (continued)

Random vibration is vibration that can be described only in a statistical
sense. Its instantaneous magnitude at any time is not known; rather,
the probability of its magnitude exceeding a certain value is given.
Examples include earthquake ground motion, ocean wave heights and

frequencies, wind pressure fluctuations on aircraft and tall buildings, and
acoustic excitation due to rocket and jet engine noise.
Random environment is characterized by a Power Spectral Density (PSD)
FE solvers perform random response analysis as post processing to unit

frequency response.
+g
-g
Time
Quick peek at Shock Spectra and
Random analysis

Random analysis

Shock Spectra

Random analysis
A substructure or piece
of equipment with
frequency 3.5 Hz would
expect to see a peak
base acceleration of 1.4 g
Shock Response spectra
No coupling is assumed between primary and substructure

Random analysis
Description of Random background
PSD theory and practical evaluation
Case study with full random output
Introduction to Vibration fatigue
Shock spectra case studies and further theory

Conclusions
CHECK LIST FOR NORMAL MODES PRIOR TO DOING FURTHER
ANALYSIS
RBMs - are they as expected
Is the frequency range adequate (we will discuss this more in the section
on modal effective mass)
Are the modes clearly identified
Is mesh density adequate
Is the element type appropriate
Is the mass distribution correct
Is coupled vs. lumped mass important
Are the internal joints modeled correctly
Are the constraints modeled correctly
Do the results compare with hand calcs, previous experience or test

Conclusions
CHECK LIST FOR RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Make sure the modes are reasonable
Transient - Plan time steps and duration
Frequency response Plan frequency range and spread
Identify forms of damping and what methods to simulate
Plan a exploratory key point approach to the results, dont output all data
Transient results check damping, frequency content, aliasing, duration
Frequency response results - check resonant frequencies captured and

good spread of points, check magnification factor against damping and
low frequency results approaching static
All forms of response check driven nodal response against input

+
g
-g
Time
Q and A www.nafems.org
www.fetraining.com

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS COMMUNITY
Thank you!
matthew.ladzinski@nafems.org

Nafems Dynamic Fea Webinar April 09 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nafems Dynamic Fea Webinar April 09 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductory Dynamic FE Analysis

April 2nd, 2009

Welcome & Introduction (Overview of NAFEMS Activities)

An Overview of NAFEMS Activities

Collaboration Innovation Productivity - Quality

To register for upcoming webinars, or to view a past webinar,

Collaboration Innovation Productivity - Quality

Tsuyoshi Yasuki - Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan

Martin Wiedemann - DLR German Aerospace Center, Germany

Jacek Marczyk - Ontonix, Italy

Louis Komzsik - Siemens PLM Software, USA

Franois Besnier - Principia RD, France

Sponsorship and Exhibition Opportunities Still

Collaboration Innovation Productivity - Quality

Overview of the e-Learning Course

Introductory Dynamic FE Analysis

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

BSc Aero. Eng. University of Hertfordshire, UK

Started at BAC Warton, UK in 1976

Worked in UK Defence Industry for 20 years;

Joined MSC.Software as UK support and Training

Transferred to MSC.Software US in 2000

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

Live Training On-Site or Public Courses

E-Learning multiple or one-on-one

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

What are Natural Frequencies, Normal Modes

Why cant I get displacements out of Normal Modes Analysis?

Importance of Mode Identification

What are Rigid Body Modes?

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

Transient Analysis background

Frequency Response Analysis

Quick peek at Shock Spectra and Random analysis

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

A diving board vibrating after the diver makes his leap

A car cup holder rattling after we go over a bump

Natural Frequency - the actual measure of frequency in cycles per second

Normal Mode - the characteristic deflected shape of the structure as it

There are many resonant frequencies in a typical structure

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

Here are the first 4 modes of the board:

1 First Bending 1.3 Hz

How could mode 2 get excited?

Is mode 3 of any practical interest?

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

The first mode is a cantilever nodding mode, at 15.7 Hz - almost certainly a

Then two twisting modes, at 34.6 Hz and 45.8 Hz

Then two hogging modes at 124.7 Hz and 144.7 Hz.

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

It could be an actual time history, frequency response, shock spectra or random

Theoretically there are an infinite number of natural frequencies in any structure.

In FE analysis this reduces to the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) in the

We are normally only interested in the dominant frequencies of a system, luckily

Energy required to get a significant response increases as frequency increases

Bridge say .5 Hz to 5 Hz important. Above 20 Hz effectively ignores excitation

Crankshaft in a F1 racing car - say 60,000 RPM means 1000 Hz is critical

NAFEMS. The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community

Theoretical Normal Modes analysis is a rather strange process in some ways.